dajafi wrote:As I think I've written here before, IMO Congress keeps ceding its own power, usually to the executive, by virtue of its near total unwillingness or inability to do the stuff it's supposed to do.

dajafi wrote:The most insightful thing I read about the filibuster rules change--admittedly from folks broadly sympathetic to it--was that the real shift that prompted this change was from its use for blocking relatively extreme judges (Dems during W.) to its use for blocking judges regardless of ideology AND blocking executive branch appointees over the last five years. This in turn was prompted by the increasing polarization in the Senate--fewer Dick Lugars, more Mike Lees--and the rise of partisan media that would "score" electeds not just for their final vote, but for whether they let a nominee get to a final vote.

It's really unfortunate that this was necessary. But I do think it was necessary, and I'm pretty certain that McConnell in Reid's position would have done the same thing.

As I think I've written here before, IMO Congress keeps ceding its own power, usually to the executive, by virtue of its near total unwillingness or inability to do the stuff it's supposed to do.

JEFF MERKLEY: You bet.

The tradition has been up-and-down votes with rare exception. But what we have had instead is, in the history of the United States of America, there have been 23 filibusters of district court nominees; 20 of those have been by the Republican minority during President Obama's presidency, 20 out of 23 in our entire history.

And we can take those same statistics and go to area after area. This perpetual war on President Obama has to come to an end. It's not serving the American people. The American people want us solving problems on the floor of the Senate, addressing the issue of living-wage jobs, addressing the issue of low employment, addressing the issue of the high expense of college.

What they don't want is our time wasted throughout the entire year on perpetual filibusters of nominees.

GWEN IFILL: Senator Merkley, your -- the president whose name you keep invoking, when he was a senator in 2005, said there should be -- that the rules are the rules and you shouldn't be changing them in midstream. What's different now?

JEFF MERKLEY: Well, let's take 2005. In 2005, a deal was reached by a group of seven Republicans and seven Democrats.

The deal was that there would be no change in the rules if the Democrats agreed to only filibuster for rare exceptional circumstances, those being terrible problems with character or experience. This deal was completely honored by the Democrats. In fact, they didn't filibuster a single judge thereafter under the Bush administration.

But, immediately upon the Republicans becoming the minority party, they broke the deal, and the statistics I have given you just reflected that. And they didn't break it just on judicial nominees. They did it on executive nominees as well.

td11 wrote:

JEFF MERKLEY: You bet.

The tradition has been up-and-down votes with rare exception. But what we have had instead is, in the history of the United States of America, there have been 23 filibusters of district court nominees; 20 of those have been by the Republican minority during President Obama's presidency, 20 out of 23 in our entire history.

jerseyhoya wrote:

dajafi wrote:The most insightful thing I read about the filibuster rules change--admittedly from folks broadly sympathetic to it--was that the real shift that prompted this change was from its use for blocking relatively extreme judges (Dems during W.) to its use for blocking judges regardless of ideology AND blocking executive branch appointees over the last five years. This in turn was prompted by the increasing polarization in the Senate--fewer Dick Lugars, more Mike Lees--and the rise of partisan media that would "score" electeds not just for their final vote, but for whether they let a nominee get to a final vote.

It's really unfortunate that this was necessary. But I do think it was necessary, and I'm pretty certain that McConnell in Reid's position would have done the same thing.

As I think I've written here before, IMO Congress keeps ceding its own power, usually to the executive, by virtue of its near total unwillingness or inability to do the stuff it's supposed to do.

I think it's a good idea for the Democrats. Frist should have done it back in 2005. It seems like there's been an ever increasing willingness of the party outside the White House to use more extreme tactics to prevent the president's nominees from getting through. It's all a bit partisan depending on where you sit on who deserves more of the blame, but I'm writing so we'll start it at Bork, which seemed to really ignite the idea that voting someone down for ideological reasons was something the Senate ought to consider. Then it increases under Clinton, with Republicans using their majority on the Judiciary Committee to keep nominees they didn't like from ever seeing the floor. Then another ratchet up under Bush, with Democrats using the filibuster to target more than a few nominees, but usually for specific reasons (too conservative or worse yet, conservative AND appealing/Supreme Court material). Now under Obama another step up, with Republicans filibustering lots of people they seemingly don't even have specific objections to, they just don't want Obama to be able to appoint them.

Eventually one side was going to pull the trigger on this. No reason to think Democrats under the next GOP president wouldn't have kept these tactics going, leading a GOP majority of less than 60 to invoke the nuclear option themselves. Might as well be the first ones to get to take advantage of it (and especially important for them to do it now in case the GOP wins the Senate in 2014 and can just vote down whoever with 51 votes).

Both sides (outside of Levin and McCain) are total hypocrites on it, which is to be expected in a partisan, process fight.

drsmooth wrote:

td11 wrote:

JEFF MERKLEY: You bet.

The tradition has been up-and-down votes with rare exception. But what we have had instead is, in the history of the United States of America, there have been 23 filibusters of district court nominees; 20 of those have been by the Republican minority during President Obama's presidency, 20 out of 23 in our entire history.

so td, your computer numbers just confirm what jerz has already said: both sides are doing it

TenuredVulture wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:Both sides (outside of Levin and McCain) are total hypocrites on it, which is to be expected in a partisan, process fight.

You'd have to add Pryor to that list I think, but he's not much of a Senator.

jerseyhoya wrote:

drsmooth wrote:

td11 wrote:

JEFF MERKLEY: You bet.

The tradition has been up-and-down votes with rare exception. But what we have had instead is, in the history of the United States of America, there have been 23 filibusters of district court nominees; 20 of those have been by the Republican minority during President Obama's presidency, 20 out of 23 in our entire history.

so td, your computer numbers just confirm what jerz has already said: both sides are doing it

If that's what you got from what I wrote, jesus christ

jerseyhoya wrote:Now under Obama another step up, with Republicans filibustering lots of people they seemingly don't even have specific objections to, they just don't want Obama to be able to appoint them.

jerseyhoya wrote:

drsmooth wrote:

td11 wrote:

JEFF MERKLEY: You bet.

The tradition has been up-and-down votes with rare exception. But what we have had instead is, in the history of the United States of America, there have been 23 filibusters of district court nominees; 20 of those have been by the Republican minority during President Obama's presidency, 20 out of 23 in our entire history.

so td, your computer numbers just confirm what jerz has already said: both sides are doing it

If that's what you got from what I wrote, jesus christ

td11 wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

drsmooth wrote:

td11 wrote:

JEFF MERKLEY: You bet.

The tradition has been up-and-down votes with rare exception. But what we have had instead is, in the history of the United States of America, there have been 23 filibusters of district court nominees; 20 of those have been by the Republican minority during President Obama's presidency, 20 out of 23 in our entire history.

so td, your computer numbers just confirm what jerz has already said: both sides are doing it

If that's what you got from what I wrote, jesus christ

well you did, in so many words. you wrote that it's been an escalating game that both parties have played and that the republican tactics now are merely a natural and expected move in that progression. but i'd disagree that

jerseyhoya wrote:Now under Obama another step up, with Republicans filibustering lots of people they seemingly don't even have specific objections to, they just don't want Obama to be able to appoint them.

is in any way a reasonable escalation of what had been going on. it's a huge jump to go from actually having objections to a candidates ideology/background/whatever to what republicans are doing now

drsmooth wrote:relax, that's not all that i got from what you wrote

are you going to respond to the 2nd part of what I wrote, that I suggested you respond to, that you haven't responded to yet?

Monkeyboy wrote:I doubt that it will last or work as intended, but I guess it's a good thing that Iran won't be trying to get the nukes. To be honest, I don't see why they shouldn't be able to. They have a nation in Israel that would just as soon blow it off the map and the US supporting that country. They should have a right to defend themselves, same as everyone else. More importantly, most energy experts are saying we need to increase nuclear to meet the growing energy needs and combat global warming. Why shouldn't Iran have access to cheap, relatively clean energy?